Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Forwarders still waiting for 1,000 containers at London Gateway from theZim Rotterdam to be cleared, have been offered a road shunt service to Tilbury by the Israeli carrier, but it will charge them £175 per box.

The 10,000teu vessel departed the port last week after discharging 3,090 containers that should have gone to Felixstowe but were taken to Gateway after a fire on the ship. A combination of problems, reported last week in The Loadstar, at the new port which doesn’t open until next month, resulted in long delays in getting the boxes cleared. One local forwarder told The Loadstar that his regular haulier had begun to refuse to accept jobs from the terminal.

“He just doesn’t want to go there, as it has involved him waiting for six-to-seven hours. One job took him 10 hours to complete a trip that has a normal transit time of two hours,” he said, adding that other hauliers had substantially increased quoted rates out of the port as a result of its problems.

“Haulage jobs that should cost me £700 are being quoted at £1,400,” he said.

In a customer advisory seen by The Loadstar, Zim said that it was “aware that traction ex-London Gateway is becoming tight, with some hauliers offering vehicles at a much higher price than usual”.

In response to the gate congestion, London Gateway executives worked with a local haulier to offer forwarders and consignees an alternative clearance channel through Tilbury Rail Port, around 10 miles away.

This service was then made available to Zim, which informed customers: “We are looking at employing a shunt operation to move available units from Gateway to Tilbury rail port. Tilbury rail port offers a 24 hour service and we understand that the level of traction available here is greater.”

However, it added: “We have no option but to levy a fee of £175 for this. This fee covers the shunt ex-Gateway to Tilbury Rail Port; lifts in and out of Tilbury Rail Port; plus one week’s storage.”

Local sources claimed that such a service should only cost around £60, given the comparatively short distance, and The Loadstar understands that so far just 12 customers have taken up the offer, for what they described as “time-sensitive” cargo.

Executives from DB Schenker were also present at London Gateway today for the naming ceremony of a new locomotive, which will be operating a daily service between the port and the rail company’s Trafford Park terminal.

The service launched last week and has seen high utilisation, carrying Zim boxes as well as those of its slot charter partners China Shipping and Yang Ming. DB Schenker will add a second service to Daventry when Gateway officially opens. In addition, the UK’s largest intermodal operator, Freightliner, is due to launch its first service into the port tomorrow.

Today was an additionally busy day at London Gateway, for, as well as the flurry of activity around the boxes, the terminal took delivery of four new ship-to-shore gantry cranes (pictured below), this had also been delayed, due to bad weather in the Bay of Biscay.

Today, the Transport Committee of the European Parliament will have a first exchange of view on the Commission Proposal for a Port Regulation, which was published on 23 May.

The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) acknowledges that the Commission proposal addresses some important conditions for ensuring a level playing field:

by tackling the transparency of financing in ports,

by recognising the freedom to provide port services

by considering the setting of charges and the minimum requirements for port services as important tools of port management.

But the Commission proposal disappoints, since it partly undermines those principles:

by intervening in the commercial freedom of ports and port authorities to vary charges according to the port management’s economic strategy;

by prescribing how ports and port authorities should deal with their clients;

by imposing additional administrative burden to ports which are not competing at the European scene;

by creating an independent supervisory body.

In that overall context, ESPO and its members cannot accept the regulation proposal as it stands.

“We welcome the fact that the Commission is considering European ports as engines for growth. European ports are facing enormous challenges: growing volumes, ever-increasing ships, further globalisation, increasing societal and environmental pressure. They need a policy that empowers them to meet these challenges, not rules that create additional burden for ports without real benefit for the port industry or the users. We hope European policy makers understand our concerns and want to work with us in view of obtaining a framework that means a step forward for every single port in Europe”, says Isabelle Ryckbost, ESPO’s Secretary General.

ESPO fears that the Commission proposal in its current form will hamper well performing ports:

The diversity of the European port sector makes it impossible to frame all ports and their managing bodies within one stringent legal framework, without giving in on their specificity and on the particular role ports are playing for their national and regional economy. Differences in size, geographical situation, governance, tasks, financial situation, etc. makes it very difficult to develop a set of rules that goes further than guiding principles.

Moreover, by restricting the commercial freedom of EU port authorities and interfering in port-related governance competences, the Regulation proposal could hamper the necessary transition of European port authorities towards dynamic port developers and worsen the position of ports which are already high performing.

Finally, European ports do not see the port regulation as thé instrument that will improve the competitiveness of ports. There are other, more important, factors that can enhance the level playing field in the port sector that need to be tackled: internal market for maritime transport, environmental rules affecting transport patterns and modes, unfair competition with third neighbouring countries, and burdensome customs procedures.

ESPO's full response to the proposed Port Regulation can be found here.